A. They never expect us to run.
B. If we start running more, and they start expecting it, it opens up the pass.
It boggles my mind you fail to grasp this.
What exactly has Leach done to deserve all your support?
- Thread starter Cougsocal
- Start date
B. If we start running more, and they start expecting it, it opens up the pass.
It boggles my mind you fail to grasp this.
Wants better process.
Makes colossal stink about a single situation where results didn't bear out after process.
You're a peach.
It's hard to see a win against OSU because of the asswhipping OSU unleashed on us in that game....
Besides lost innocence, that's Wulff's legacy in my mind. When his job was on the line he was unprepared and went conservative.
Go back and watch the games.
When all teams do is rush 3 and drop 8 and you don't make them at least check the run, its too easy to defend.
Again, watch the Apple cup where we rip off a 10 plus yd run...then throw 4 straight passes and turn the ball over on downs.
Blows my mind...and I've seen that on several occasions.
You just said running more and well will set up the pass, as though that's a good thing.
And in the Apple Cup, they did that, yet you decide to complain because in this specific case, the passes that were set up by the good running didn't work. So, I'm guessing you'd pretty much complain anytime something went wrong after three downs without a run. Even if it went wrong on a pass set up by running.
And not say anything when first and 10 turns into second and 12 on a handoff- there's plenty of those too- go back and watch the games.
If.....if.....if. Some of you have the gall to say that I'm the king of if's and but's and then Yaki pulls out a "if Leach had ......" comment. 6-7 sucked balls and everyone knows it. Making an excuse for Leach is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. The fact that we missed a bowl game and we are resorting to excuses smacks of the Wulff era. Ask anyone who roots for a real football school and they would tell you that 6-7 is a failed season. As for my Wulff support, let's just say that I think a 6 win season would probably have been the peak of Paul's tenure based on what he did. It was not a compliment. And I stand by my comment, if we don't go to bowl games in 2015 and 2016.....Leach was a bad hire and we should have saved the $10 million dollars and stuck with Wulff. We could have fired Bone sooner and tried to be a basketball school.
I still have hope that Leach will bring us around because things are creeping in the right direction, but it hasn't happened fast enough given the money that we are spending. It's time to see real results. Great coaches don't need six years to get their teams out of the bottom half of their conferences. Let's hope that Mike proves that he is worthy of being called a great coach.
Running to set up the pass is a good thing. Doesn't mean you have to pass the ball 4 straight times after a successful running play for a first down. If you rip off a 12 yd run, why not line up and try it again? I've never seen Leach do that.
If teams are gonna drop 8 on us, run the ball more and make them respect the run
6-7 was a hundred prom nights(and mine was good) compared to the Wulff show.
If a "real football school" considered 6-7 a failure, what would 9-40 be?
I've seen him do it, you must not be watching much. I'd expect it more with another year on the RB's.
How many of those four passes got dropped? Don't we both know that usually in that case, after third down, there'd have been a FG try, except for with last year's ST? But yeah, playcalling, man...
Yeah, play calling. If something worked, try it again.
Teams are willing to give up 10 yd runs by us because they know they'll see 3 straight passes so they never have to worry about defending the run. So easy to defend
Flat,
Why do you keep acting like if Leach wasn't hired in 2012, Wulff would be our coach?
Wulff was getting canned after 2011 regardless.
Also, 6-7 and a bowl game looks pretty damn good if you haven't been in the post season for 9 seasons. USC we are not.
9-40 was a freaking epic fail. Here's the deal, WSU finished 4-8 in 2011 with Wulff as our coach. We finished 3-9 in 2012 and 2014 with Leach. What kind of upgrade is that? This isn't about how good Wulff could be, it's the fact that when it comes to on the field results, Leach has been a letdown and in two out of three seasons, he couldn't match Wulff's last season. That's bad. I don't remember the part of the Mike Leach introductory press conference where they said that our goal as a university was to make it to one bowl game in five years. I don't remember the part where Moos said that with Leach as coach, we would be proud of our performance in the 2014 Apple Cup because we outscored UW 13-0 in the fourth quarter on the way to a 31-13 loss.
It's time for Leach to produce. It's time for people to quit making excuses for Leach based on anything that happened when Wulff was here. Any comparison to Wulff that doesn't involve a bowl game this year is just another sign that Leach is failing to earn his pay. I really, really want to see us make a bowl game because I'm tired of dick measuring contests on this board about how one guy sucks less than the other. Leach was supposed to be great. I'm ready for that to be true.
Do you really think the disparity will be as bad this year with everyone in the backfield and OL back, and a new, more mobile QB?
Leach has never had a losing season until coming to Pullman. He is cleaning up the 9-40 mess. If progress isn't linear, the heads explode for the binary morons.
Let Leach have his 4th year before you start pounding the table for a change.
Ummmmmm, take a look at the last seven football coaches and see how long it took them to have a winning season.
Warren Powers: 1
Jim Walden: 4
Dennis Erickson: 2
Mike Price: 1 (did it again in year 4)
Doba: 1 (Price kind of stacked that team for him) He did have a 0.500 season in year 4.
Wulff: eternity
Leach: still waiting
We may not be USC, but the evidence above suggests that you can win football games at WSU, even if it isn't sustained. Again, pointing to the past as an excuse is extremely Wulffian of you. Avoid the desire to do that.
Well, yes..and I hope I'm wrong.
I just think Leach is too in love with the pass and wants to prove to everyone that he can win by passing every down. That's my opinion. We'll see if we run the ball more..but I doubt it
And making your excuse makes your middle name "Wulff". Mike Fing Wulff Leach. It has a nice ring to it. Stanford went 16-40 before Harbaugh took over. Not 9-40 but in the same ballpark. In year four, they went 12-1. I'd be happy with a frickin' bowl game. Kansas State had gone 6-55 in the six years before Bill Snyder took over. They were 7-4 in year 3 and 9-2-1 in year 5 of his tenure at KSU. Florida State went 4-29 in their three years before Bobby Bowden took over and went 10-2 in his second year. The goddamned Huskies went 12-47 before Sarkisian took over and they were in a bowl game in year two with him. Stop making freakin' excuses! It's pathetic. Leach needs to do a better job of earning his pay. He deserves a pass on 2012 because things were a mess. 2013 was fine other than the abomination of a bowl game that ruined it. 2014 was a pathetic showing. Bumbling away winnable games is the coach's responsibility.
Exactly. I too find Yaki's if only we had more jc's, we'd win 7-8 games hillarious. That's right up there with Uncle Rico saying if only they put him in, they'd win state
Good to see you let common sense take a backseat to your distaste for the coach.
That's 2 games away from 6 wins and that was probably about as good as it was going to get moving forward.
I can't think of a Wulff strength. Price, Leach, even Doba as an established DC had something to hang their hat on. What was Wulff's calling card?
Wulff for one pattern his plan after Price's. TWo, in retrospect had a decent idea about what a Pac 10 lineman looked liked. Three, He did good job of getting Pac 10 QB's on the roster when no one wanted Tuel and Cal came in late on Halliday. DB's were ok, and one tirned out to be really good.
He did what Doba didn't do is get rid of the dead weight, made the tough decisions. Doba didn't recruit one All Pac 10 defensive player as a head coach. Wulff had two players drafted in the first three rounds of the draft. And he was reruiting off what?
Some coaches don't have a calling card. You can down play his success at Eastern all you want. He did a good job. There are plenty of examples of coaches who aren't dynamic but have a system and a philosophy.
If they gained one more inch that is five wins, so they were a play or two away from 6 wins.
F-i-L....or FIL...funny you mention that. Young teams make young mistakes. A mature team would have had time plus a timeout to know exactly where it was. If this was USC or Oregon and not WSU whether it is PRice's WU or Doba or whoever, that goal line play gets reviewed or the refs at least stop the clock and talk it over. JUst like when WIcks scored against Cal, WU never gets the benefit of the doubt.
With that said, if the previous two plays the receiver runs out of bounds instead of tries to gain another 5 yards, and conversely, the next play where the WR runs out of bounds where it looks like he really had a chance to make a play and score, both young players mistakes. As far as who would have gone for it and who would have kicked it, conventional wisdom is you kick it and take your chance in OT. Your QB is hot. The otehr QB is marginal. Stop White, you stop Utah.
But I will say one play is moronic with a freshman QB at the helm in HAlliday. Match that up against the clock management against Cal in which WSU had a senior Connor Halliday running the show and instead of getting off another play he calls time out. Run the ball one more time and then call the time out. Why did Leach allow that to happen? Then he sends out a kicker who shanks an extra point.
See, every play and every close game can be equally scrutinized. Upper classmen do the things, the small things that win games.
Trying to copy Price was probably a good idea but not a strength. Price went out and got Bledsoe who had a former Husky player for a father. Price was the QB coach and Involved in the offense. When you say QB was a strength for Price there are multiple examples for why beyond finding a Jeff Tuel. I like Tuel but he wasn't a program changing QB. Same thing for OLM. The one thing I thought we would get with Wulff was an emphasis on the OL but it was always a weakness.
I don't see strengths that set him apart from a lot of other coaches in the Pac 10/12. If he had a lot of things he was average at then maybe that adds up to a strength but that didn't appear to be the case.
What is funny Wulffui was that I laughed at his thought process too when I came upon your answer. He cherry picked one set of downs. Oh, by the way, I still hate the new format for the forum.
How can say he knew what an OL looked like when he recruited maybe 5 of them in 4 years???
Jeff Tuel was d2. That was why no one offered him. He did a whole lot of not much in high school, a whole lot of nothing spectacular at WSU and lost his starting job and then he lands in the NFL on the team that has the worst QB talent in the league. He is a coach killer. I've never seen a player get so many opportunities while providing so little results. We should all be so lucky to have so many chances to produce while failing every time.
You're clueless ed.
Jeff Tuel was d2. That was why no one offered him. He did a whole lot of not much in high school, a whole lot of nothing spectacular at WSU and lost his starting job and then he lands in the NFL on the team that has the worst QB talent in the league. He is a coach killer. I've never seen a player get so many opportunities while providing so little results. We should all be so lucky to have so many chances to produce while failing every time.
You're clueless ed.
See, this is an example of you have no idea of what you are talking about. You just do not. Leach ran more most years at TT and even more in specific years. Leach was asked about this point. He said, (paraphrasing here) "Well yeah, I had veteran offensive lines and veteran running backs."
The stubborn person is not Leach, it is you. You both have belief's. His is borne from around 30 years of coaching and 25 of running his system. Your belief is based on what you think you know about him. Your belief is just not correct.
Biggs, what Wulff did identify at times were athletes, not football players. Rico Forbes, Zach Williams, etc., and even to a lesser extent, Jeff Tuel. Williams and Tuel got shots in the NFL because they are highly athletic. Neither of them were good football players.
Did you go full retard?
Leach's success or failure is completely immaterial to whether or not Wulff should have been fired. The guy was an epic failure. The program was circling the drain, and maybe halfway down the drain. He couldn't attract quality assistants, he couldn't recruit, he couldn't win. His record was 9-40. The truth is that he never should have been at WSU to begin with, and the administration made it worse by giving him 2011.
Leach's success or failure is completely immaterial to whether or not Wulff should have been fired. The guy was an epic failure. The program was circling the drain, and maybe halfway down the drain. He couldn't attract quality assistants, he couldn't recruit, he couldn't win. His record was 9-40. The truth is that he never should have been at WSU to begin with, and the administration made it worse by giving him 2011.
So, say that you break the single game NCAA record for passing, should you keep doing it?
And even still, that "worst QB talent in the league" keeps bringing guys in off the street that displace Tuel.
His NFL career will last as long as his practice squad eligibility.
But you're comparing Wulff and Leach when you talk about year to year upgrades, should have saved money with Wulff, and the other stuff you're spewing here. Wulff had to be fired. He should never have been hired to begin with, and should have been fired no later than December of 2010 when it was beyond question that he was completely unable to do the job.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the proposition that Leach needs to produce.
Now, wait a sec. It's a very, very well documented fact that the QB has a very long leash in CML's offense. CML will call a formation but the QB calls many/most plays. And it's the QB that is allowed to see what the Defense is giving him and can audible. Is that on the coach for allowing it, or the QB for calling it? I don't know that it matters. I don't know that CML had any option but to stick it out with Halliday, regardless of what CH did. So while you can complain about the Air Raid, which we all knew what it was when he was hired and NOW you complain, you might want to look at the QB in equal strength in regards to the frequency of the run.
But I think Falk has already shown that he's going to run the ball more. Just because they didn't run in the Spring Scrimmage doesn't mean much. Falk ran more in his games last year (not by much but more than Halliday) and he's been running the ball a whole bunch more in practice.
Actually, there are plenty of people here saying that Leach doesn't need to produce. If you look back at my original comments, the thing that I specifically said was that Leach needs to get us into another bowl game by the end of the 2016 or his hire was a complete waste of time and money. That was not intended to be a comparison to Wulff. That was simply saying that he wouldn't be getting the job done. I've always said that Wulff needed to go at the end of the 2011 season. If we don't make it to a bowl game this year or next, we will have wasted $11 million on Leach and gotten no real benefit. I did mention that Leach has failed to match Wulff in two out of three seasons and you can call that a comparison if you want but I don't see how anyone can spin that as a good thing or a compliment to Leach.
Again, for those that can't read.....I've always felt that Wulff needed to be fired.
I'm saying that if Leach can't get the job done soon, regardless of the freakin' excuses that are so common around here, he was a complete waste of money. If we eventually fire him, the new coach will be in the same spot that Leach and most other new coaches are in. Weak first recruiting class, players who aren't happy with the change, 2-3 years before things improve (if they do). If he can't get things turned around soon, there would be no material difference between Leach and Wulff and we've done is throw away prodigious amounts of cash. One 6-7 season doesn't a career make and it is not justification for Leach's future success. And again, every coach for 30 years before Wulff and Leach was able to get a winning record at WSU so it's not like it's impossible.
What's funny is if you read all of the posts defending Leach right now, and substitute in "Wulff" in place of "Leach", it's almost like reading Ed's defense of Wulff. Doba (Wulff) left the team in shambles, we have a defective culture that needs fixing, recruiting is improving over time, you have to be patient and rebuild the core of the team, blah, blah, blah. The good coaches go out and win. They don't finish with losing records year after year, often worse than their predecessors, and make excuses for how tough it is. Nobody is expecting us to contend for a conference championship in year four, but we shouldn't be hoping for a bowl berth. Leach knows it and you know it. There are factors in our losses that are incredibly difficult for any coach to control but at some point, it becomes their responsibility whether it's fair or not. We are reaching that point with Leach. We aren't there yet, but you can see it on the horizon. We all want the same thing and hope that Leach gets it figured out, so feel free to let go of the idea that I have something against Leach because I don't. I'm just tired of the mediocrity.
That's just not true. Wulff was desperately trying to recruit, and failing. He had lots of deadwood on the roster in 2011. Lots.
ASU came in late on Halliday.
And I don't know what Wulff's system or philosophy was. It was supposed to be a no huddle, or so I thought. He only ran that on offense for about a season and a half.
Wrong again. Even if Leach doesn't get enough Ws and gets fired, his name and reputation will have kept WSU marginally relevant during his tenure. WSU was irrelevant during the Wulff era.
And Wulff had 5 wins through three seasons. Leach has 12. Comparing Wulff's single best season to all of Leach's doesn't make any sense.
You have to be patient with the right coach. Wulff was not the guy to be patient with. Leach might be.
You keep comparing Leach with Wulff... why? Why not start looking forward? It's been 4 years, has it not? Why don't ever compare Leach to his peer group?
Also: your post seems to reflect a belief some are calling for Leach's head. Who? Where have they done this? can you refer a link for context and accuracy?
Also: your post seems to reflect a belief some are calling for Leach's head. Who? Where have they done this? can you refer a link for context and accuracy?
With this awesome new format and you didn't quote anyone, not sure whom you are responding to… ?
